An Analysis of Judicial Precedents on Medical Practice in Criminal Litigation in Obstetrics and Gynecology

This study analyzed 22 criminal cases involving obstetricians and gynecologists to identify legal trends and propose measures to reduce the legal burden on medical professionals while maintaining stable healthcare services. The cases were retrieved from the Supreme Court of Korea Judicial Information Disclosure Portal using keywords such as “obstetrics,” “gynecology,” “expectant mother,” “fetus,” “neonate,” “delivery,” “uterus,” and “placenta.” The cases were classified into two categories: medical malpractice (16 cases, 72.7%) and abortion and bioethics (6 cases, 27.3%). Guilty verdicts were issued in 8 cases (36.4%), whereas 14 cases (63.6%) resulted in acquittal. The qualitative analysis showed that courts consistently protected physicians’ clinical discretion in unpredictable and unavoidable situations, such as amniotic fluid embolism and uterine atony, provided that standard medical protocols were followed. Procedural appropriateness, rather than the perfection of clinical outcomes, appeared to be the primary basis for judicial protection. Although the judiciary acknowledges the inherent limitations of medical practice and tends to protect physicians when established guidelines are followed, the high frequency of criminal prosecution remains a substantial burden on healthcare providers and may threaten the sustainability of obstetric care.